Former conspiracy believer here

[PixyMisa]

When it fails totally I will happily shut up and admit that I have been wrong all along. I'm not yet convinced.

Nick, what you are proposing is a covert global government that has failed at everything it has attempted... except for maintaining its own secrecy. This is somehow simultaneously inconsistent and comforting. If we are to have a secret global government, I would much prefer an incomptetent one.

 

[Nick227]

No problem. But it's important to understand just how widely applicable this is. All sorts of complex behaviours arise this way, not least the human mind.

Yes, I would like to study emergent systems theory more sometime.

But more importantly, you have to consider is what event would be inconsistent with Synarchy. If you can't come up with something, then you have an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

When I see the media promoting love, peace and awareness more. If 911 was orchestrated by terrorists then some of the measures enacted are justified. If you are interested in understanding me, and I'm not saying you should be, you have to appreciate that I was totally aware of manipulation strategies like problem-reaction-solution some years before 911. So were a lot of people. 911 fits with it so pat.

What, you think otherwise? Big on promises, short on delivery. Seems to be the way of the world to me.

You really bought that one at some point, PM. That's a cynic's worldview. It's not mine.

On the contrary, as far as I can tell, it is false-to-fact.

Ecstasy was transforming the social reality of a good million young working class people. Check Madchester. The whole rave scene that emerged was big time different from what preceded it. Check Ibiza also from mid-eighties on.

Evidence, Nick. Evidence.

Check the website linked earlier - 50 Years Is Enough. There are more. Check the books and social commentaries. The first popular one was A Fate Worse Than Debt, by Susan George around the late 80s. Look for online synopsis at least. There is a pattern of engagement repeated in country after country. It's low intensity conflict.

Absolute, complete, utter, unmitigated baloney.

Psychological and environmental effects on health are the subject of scientific study. Doctors learn about this in medical school.

It's inevitably harder to substantiate because of the techniques involved. It's a lot easier to show that citalopram decreases serotonin re-uptake, than it is to show that potentized water promotes better health - because one can be objectively demonstrated and the other is entirely subjectively reported. The issue is with reporting good data not with inherent worth of the systems.

Pascal's Wager doesn't pay off.

What's Pascal's Wager? I'm intrigued.

Nick

 

[chipmunk stew]

Why would you put the Windsor fire on your list when I asked for bldgs that collapsed, specificially, total collapse like WTC 7? From your link:

"Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse. "

Hey, did you know that the new building seven has a concrete core? Know why?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Uh nope. I don't know how the bldg would've collapsed had the fires burned hotter.

If the question is, could the bldg collapse from extremely hot fires, my personal response would be, sure, I suppose it could happen.

The more important question is did the fires burn hot enough to make the bldg collapse?

I assure you I won't try and rephrase this again. Either someone will provide an answer, or we'll move on.

Magic 8-Ball: "All signs point to yes."

 

[Belz...]

Why would you put the Windsor fire on your list when I asked for bldgs that collapsed, specificially, total collapse like WTC 7? From your link:

[...]

Does this look like a collapsed building to you?

It looks like a collapsed steel structure, to me.

 

[Belz...]

Well, I think you have to consider what you call "evidence" here. I don't have any smoking gun type evidence, as I've happily stated throughout. I would say that there is considerable circumstantial evidence of centralised control and that other explanations also exist.

Such as ?

It could be. It could also be that you manipulate events to occur in order to justify certain political interventions. Some commentators call it problem-reaction-solution. You subtly cause the problem to occur, or emphasise the existence of a problem through the media. You allow a little bit of public outcry. Then you grandly announce your solution to the problem, precisely the policy you wanted to implement.

And how does that happen without using magic ?

Say you wanted to just control Americans a bit more. You draft up the Patriot Act and discuss with your buddies about it. But they're a bit like, Hmmm well you know a lot of people are gonna react big time to this. It's gonna cause demos all sorts of hassle, we'll be accused of all sorts of ****. So, it's time to cause a problem, allow an outcry, and then grandly announce your masterplan to restore order. Cue cheering.

Speculation.

Gosh, I'm tired of seeing people make up their own conclusions and pat themselves on the back, thinking they've proven something.

Personally, I still consider it a co-ordinated covert political act.

Translation: "Well, reality doesn't agree with me, but it's wrong."

 

[Belz...]

The Gov are very happy for people to take heroin.

How do you figure that, since they seem to be in an all-out war on drug since, like, ever ?

It socially marginalises potential political dissidents and other authority trippers.

And how do you ensure that only the bad people take drugs and the okay ones don't ?

You seem to be swimming in your own reality-pond, here.

Do you think the Patriot Act could have gone through without 911?

Perhaps not. How does that prove anything ?

The Gov were finally driven to illegalise opium by sustained social pressure.

Doesn't sound very oppressive, to me.

 

[Calcas]

What's Pascal's Wager? I'm intrigued.
Nick

Is it really that difficult to Google something?

"The Wager posits that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

 

[PixyMisa]

When I see the media promoting love, peace and awareness more.

That would falsify the NWO? Really?

If 911 was orchestrated by terrorists then some of the measures enacted are justified. If you are interested in understanding me, and I'm not saying you should be, you have to appreciate that I was totally aware of manipulation strategies like problem-reaction-solution some years before 911. So were a lot of people. 911 fits with it so pat.

Which proves nothing.

You really bought that one at some point, PM. That's a cynic's worldview. It's not mine.

It's a simple observation. Your worldview is the cynical one, Nick.

Ecstasy was transforming the social reality of a good million young working class people. Check Madchester. The whole rave scene that emerged was big time different from what preceded it. Check Ibiza also from mid-eighties on.

So we have a generation of drugged-up apathetic morons, and suddenly this is bad, because they are the wrong sort of drugged-up apathetic morons, and the government moves to ban a drug that is already illegal.

Right.

There is a pattern of engagement repeated in country after country. It's low intensity conflict.

Again, all you are doing is assigning a motive and assuming a conspiracy. Doesn't fly.

It's inevitably harder to substantiate because of the techniques involved.

Nope.

It's harder to substantiate because it doesn't work.

It's a lot easier to show that citalopram decreases serotonin re-uptake, than it is to show that potentized water promotes better health - because one can be objectively demonstrated and the other is entirely subjectively reported.

You can't "potentize" water. It's a complete fiction. Homeopathic remedies do absolutely nothing in double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trials. They are physically and chemically indistinguishable from the pure solvents (alcohol or water); even homeopaths can't tell them apart. The core homeopathic doctrine of "like cures like" has no basis in fact. The idea that more dilute solutions are more effective has no basis in fact. Indeed, no part of homeopathy has any basis in fact.

It's fraud, and nothing more.

What's Pascal's Wager? I'm intrigued.

Blaise Pascal, the French philospher, argued that if there was no God, when we died we'd just rot, whereas if there was a God and we didn't believe in Him, we'd burn in Hell. Therefore (he reasoned), it is better to believe in God whether He exists or not.

Of course, this is a false dichotomy; it ignores all the other possibilities, such as non-Christian dieties who punish worshippers of false gods but are amicable to straightforward unbelievers. It also ignores the fact that worshipping God is not free of cost.

 

[Belz...]

It's inevitably harder to substantiate because of the techniques involved.

Argument from ignorance, neatly disguised.

 

[Nick227]

Nick, what you are proposing is a covert global government that has failed at everything it has attempted... except for maintaining its own secrecy.

I'm not proposing it has failed. If there is a global synarchy, and its objectives are negative, then it hasn't completely succeeded.

This is assuming that any synarchy necessarily has negative objectives. For those who accept the idea of a synarchy it could also be that it needed to use aggressive and hostile tactics, such as those of the WB and IMF, for a while, to achieve certain aims, and then it can be more open and positive.

This is somehow simultaneously inconsistent and comforting. If we are to have a secret global government, I would much prefer an incomptetent one.

Haha

Nick

 

[chipmunk stew]

I have got to thank you for the DB Cooper link. What a fascinating story. Everybody should read it.

The link to the cuban hi-jackings sort of underscores my point. The last one I could ascertain about a hi-jacking on native soil was apparently in 1980--21 years before 9/11. Hopefully for them and their careers, none of the same operators were at the controls between the two hijackings. Again, if I hear the word hi-jackings, I'm going "all in."

I can't really expect everybody to play the hand just like me but I would expect the military to do so. If anybody sits there and feels that this would be over-reactive, that is their opinion and I can respect that.

To me, this whole line of argument is just like Fetzer's claim that he would have beaten the hijackers with his luggage.

From the first report of a hijacking at about 9:40 to the last plane being crashed in Shanksville at about 10:07, only an hour and a half elapsed. There was no protocol in place for an attack of this sort. Who, specifically, should have had the insight, authority, and organizational flexibility to respond decisively in such short order?

 

[Nick227]

"The Wager posits that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

I take more the Sufi position - Trust in God, tether your camel!

Hopefully there's no synarchy with negative ambitions. Just in case there is I keep a check on things.

Nick

 

[beachnut]

Gum,
The Windsor burned for 26 hours and only partially collapsed. The WTC 7 burned for about 7 1/2 hours and completely collapsed.

Does this look like a collapsed building to you?

Too bad you did not tell me when the steel sections exploded. Tell me how many hours it took for the steel to start falling. OH, you mean before 5 hours, before 4 hours of a simple fire, the steel was exploding to the street, and falling on itself? Or was it near 2 hours?. OMG, you know the lower floors were fought by firemen. Too bad there is not a bigger water cannon.

So we do know the building was DESTROYED by fire; You have to tell us all where THIS building is today. Where is it redibus?

You my friend are a sad person who does not understand steel. Sad. You are unable to see the truth, you are unable to think rationally and figure out what most people figured out on 9/11. 6 years and you are still supporting liars. Good for you.

You many lack knowledge and experience but you sure are loyal to the idiots of 9/11 truth. Bravo.

 

[Sabrina]

holy: I believe gumboot and others have addressed this fairly well, but I'll add what I know to the situation as well. As I stated, I work within the intelligence community (hereafter abbreviated IC) and have brought up the question of reactions and foreknowledge to many intel professionals. I've even spoken directly with people who were high up in the FAA heirarchy that day and are now working for TSA or other agencies. All of them, when asked about what they thought THEN (as opposed to now) stated unanimously that the idea of planes being flown into buildings was, to them, a ludicrous theory. Up until that point, nearly every hijacked aircraft had landed safely, and the hijackers nearly always intended to use the passengers as hostages for some monetary or political gain (i.e. a large ransom payoff or the release of a political prisoner). There were a few small isolated examples of hijackers smuggling explosives on board and blowing up the plane, and I believe one foiled attempt to hijack an aircraft heading to Paris in order to ram the Eiffel Tower with it (I'll have to see if I can locate the source on that though; I'm probably remembering it wrong. If anyone can help, please do so! My google-fu is not so good), but no strong indications (PRE-9/11 that is; POST-9/11 it was pretty obvious that some things people had dismissed as unlikely were clear indications of the plot to take place) that hijackers intended to turn planes into missiles and attack buildings. Taking that into account, can you understand why the actions you are positing did NOT take place then, but would if such an event were to occur again? 9/11 exposed a HUGE, GINORMOUS fault in our security, and we've been attempting to fix it since. As gumboot stated, should something similar happen now, the ideas you've posited would happen, or at least similar ones would, and it is much more likely that any such attempt would fail (although there's always a chance it would succeed, as no system is perfect). Do you understand what we mean now?

And by the way, if I came across as condescending or rude, please know that was not my intent; I simply want to address your concerns and hopefully mitigate them, but I recognize that the written word does not always convey the emotions intended properly.

 

[8den]

I don't recall the coroners extact statement. It emerged some time after the furore. I'm pretty sure cause of death was established as over-hydration. She drank too much water and died because the E mediated some bodily reaction related to over-hydration. She was following the Gov's guidelines for people using E.

Ecstasy's long-term effects are not clear. What is clear is that danger of death is acutely minimal. The drug remains Schedule 1 restricted.

So you're saying that it's only the result of Bett's death that I cannot get legal esctasy?

As pointed out from the start, the evidence is circumstantial. Other interpretations exist. I examine also the CT interpretation because I think it's important. It's a form of insurance against negative future outcomes.

There's no evidence circumstantial or otherwise. What you are doing is projecting your beliefs about a government controlled media, to justify your paranoia.

I've met loads.

And many of them were, how did you put it; "political dissidents" before they hit the smack?

I'm sure there's a wikipedia article on CIA involvement in the global drug trade. I recall they've taken a lot of flak on at least 3 occasions - Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iran-Contra.

There's a few points here.

Oh well if it's on wiki it must be true. Nick we don't trust Wikipedia as a reliable source for anything around here.

Secondly The Iran Contra affair was to do with the sale of arms, it's alleged that money went to the Contra's and possibly connected with Cocaine. Not heroin.

In Afghanistan the US military were sending money in not taking money out, so I'd be interested to know about the CIA involvement. The allegations
about drug trafficking mainly came from Soviet sources who cannot be seen as unbiased.

The Vietnam war claims are from one man Dr Alfred Mc Coy who said this

In most cases, the CIA's role involved various forms of complicity, tolerance or studied ignorance about the trade, not any direct culpability in the actual trafficking ... [t]he CIA did not handle heroin, but it did provide its drug-lord allies with transport, arms, and political protection. In sum, the CIA's role in the Southeast Asian heroin trade involved indirect complicity rather than direct culpability

So again Nick care to provide any evidence to support this assertion;

It provides nice sums of black market money for the CIA to direct towards covert campaigns.

You've made a very specific allegation, please support it.

Thank you for sharing your insights and lust for truth.

You said governments "love heroin and hate ecstasy" if you're going to make wild allegations without a shred of supporting evidence, I'm going to laugh at you.

When war commenced, what was their attitude then, at that point?

Why don't you go research the papers archive. It's been pointed out to by several different posters that your memory of the media and the media's behaviour in the run up to the Iraq war is basically flat out wrong. Instead of demanding the specific editorial stance of several news papers, why don't you education yourself before making spurious announcements.

I do both and have consistently pointed out that other explanations exist throughout this thread.

Nick

You don't seem to the former at all. And see Nick, you've offered not a whit of evidence, to support your alternative explanations. Thats not a theory, thats playing make believe.

 

[Calcas]

There were a few small isolated examples of hijackers smuggling explosives on board and blowing up the plane, and I believe one foiled attempt to hijack an aircraft heading to Paris in order to ram the Eiffel Tower with it (I'll have to see if I can locate the source on that though; I'm probably remembering it wrong. If anyone can help, please do so! My google-fu is not so good),

This is a pretty good artricle, and here is a relevant passage.

"In December 1994, an al-Qaeda affiliate, the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, hijacked an Air France Airbus with 171 passengers aboard, intending to plunge it into the Eiffel Tower. None of the hijackers could fly the aircraft to its intended target, so, instead, the plane landed in Marseilles, where French police stormed it."

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/newjournal/articles/sinaiforecast.htm

 

[Nick227]

Again, all you are doing is assigning a motive and assuming a conspiracy. Doesn't fly.

I'm saying read about it. Study. Then decide. Check out what I'm saying. Look at the pattern of engagement in the countries the WB and IMF "helped out." The demands for Structural Adjustment Policies. What you see is one smaller country after another, compelled to internally restructure to meet the criteria of the World Bank, absolutely regardless of the human cost.

It's like taking over some vast inefficient conglomerate and compelling it to move efficiently in one direction under the control of the Executive Directorship. You go around implenting policy in every department, rigorously enforcing it regardless of the short term cost. Eventually you have proper management and the company functions efficiently. But, theoretically, the world is not a company!

It also ignores the fact that worshipping God is not free of cost.

It sure isn't in the States!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

So you're saying that it's only the result of Bett's death that I cannot get legal esctasy?

No. I'm saying that the legal ban on Ecstasy that now exists was manipulated into being.

There's no evidence circumstantial or otherwise. What you are doing is projecting your beliefs about a government controlled media, to justify your paranoia.

Read about the World Bank and IMF. Follow the story in the myriad nonCT sites that exist.

And many of them were, how did you put it; "political dissidents" before they hit the smack?

Junkies have authority trips. It's common as hell.

You've made a very specific allegation, please support it.

I can't totally corroborate it, no.

You said governments "love heroin and hate ecstasy" if you're going to make wild allegations without a shred of supporting evidence, I'm going to laugh at you.

There's circumstantial evidence. Check in particular ibogaine.

Why don't you go research the papers archive. It's been pointed out to by several different posters that your memory of the media and the media's behaviour in the run up to the Iraq war is basically flat out wrong. Instead of demanding the specific editorial stance of several news papers, why don't you education yourself before making spurious announcements.

I looked at the papers at the time. It was here we go to war, boys.

It's not just me, you know. A hell of a lot of people believe this CT version of history. It's not because there's hard evidence. As far as I know there isn't. It's because the patterns we're given to account for recent history no longer work for more and more people. They're ready for something else. Let's wait and see what happens.

Nick

 

[peteweaver]

WTC 7 steel framed tube in tube construction, placed over existing con-edison electrical substation with unique method of distribution of load. Windsor tower, completely different 'animal', concrete reinforced untill floor 17, no electrical substation beneath it, not a steel tube in tube design.

Its like trying to compare the Williams FW15 supercomputer controlled race car, with a Foden truck. They were two enormously different buildings.